Nin Win

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Nin Win last won the day on May 7

Nin Win had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

235 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About Nin Win

  • Rank
  1. I use craft paint. I only break out the miniature paint for the small details on a terrain piece.
  2. With a third person acting as a GM, the best means to getting a person who is not used to reinforcements arriving mid game used to them is to have special events happen every turn for a game. And tell both players they will be a surprise and so you'll let them know. Tell them proximity to certain terrain pieces, board positions and table edges might trigger these. Coming up with some will be a challenge, but many of them can just be information. If you give each player a secret objective, maybe moving near a building means the player gets a report from a spy that was hiding there and gets to know the opponent's secret objective. Foreshadow reinforcements the first time you use them. The sound of marching feet to the east is heard at the beginning of the battle round before they arrive. My favorite is if the side being reinforced is fighting chaos. Let the players know a storm cloud has just rolled in from nowhere with lots of thunder and lightning. Strangely centred over the battlefield. On the next turn, Stormcast from your own collection arrive. Or perhaps they hear the the thrumming of an engine high above and the next turn some Kharadron mercenaries are dropped off. It's also okay to foreshadow reinforcements and have them not arrive. Or "roll" hidden from view from the players and go "the storm is intensifying" even if the Stormcast never arrive. Or maybe put out a single skaven miniature near a terrain piece and when anything moves or shoots at it it dives down an unseen hole. Maybe skaven will arrive in force, maybe they won't. Even the possibility of reinforcements will change the game as the player's will discover for themselves why reserves were voluntarily held by real generals-- to deal with the unexpected. Only do this if you've previously added reinforcements in a game you are running, it's ineffectual to have a threat of reinforcements if a player doesn't really think it could happen or is even the kind of thing that might happen in a game of AoS.
  3. I definitely consider it an introductory scenario where you'll get to all the phases of the game happening right away. I've been running it mostly for people who are new to AoS and it tends to get to the action immediately. I tend to have a couple pieces of terrain per quadrant and usually if I go first I open up by taking a terrain piece and explaining how the 9" bubble means they can't deploy into it. I always sort of thought the point of the 9" bubble was so you could claim territory and have at least some semblance of a common place to gather the models who ended up in the same quadrant. The new players seem to get the decision making right away when I start putting models in quadrants so they can link up/gather together. I guess going right in the centre might be gaming things, but usually terrain means there's a better move. I might actually try putting a terrain piece that models can't really go on in the centre of each quadrant. A crag or a building with a steep roof and no entrances. Something to make each quadrant also have a small "no go" area at the centre like the larger scenario. The 50% dead victory condition also does end things very quickly. And if the hero dies then it goes from a minor victory to a major one. I usually am pretty aggressive putting my hero out early as part of explaining the scenario. It's probably the wrong move in terms of trying to win, but it helps to be able to say "to win you need to kill half my models, but to get a major victory you'll also want to kill this guy." One thing I am looking forward to is playing the multiplayer version from the GHB with the skirmish rules. With the six territories and no one knowing which player will be on which team. On Saturday we should have multiple players with 50 renown a piece painted up. I'm going to bring an extra warband and ask another player to do the same and maybe we can rope in a couple x-wing players and I'll finally get to try the scenario with the full six players. The GHB scenario has no models placed with 4" of the enemy while the skirmish one has 9 inches. If I'm doing the GHB one using the skirmish rules, what distance do you think I should go with? Is the 9" only needed because the models get within the same quadrant or do you think the extra space might be a good idea even when the table is separated into 6 territories? Now that I think of it, there might also be something to be said for sticking with a 4x4 and quarters and not doing 6 players.
  4. They're really coming together. I finally got a Stormcast done for Aos28. I hoping it's enough of a departure from the bright and shiny heroic take on Simarites for AoS28 given it's not modified at all. I can't find my agrellan earth so I will be delayed in my basing.
  5. Those skeleton units turned out great. I really like how both the miniatures and the bases have real variety in their colours and apparent textures.
  6. The Fog of War Page 17: "Two forces march through the night to a foggy battlefield. As the mist lifts, the armies find that they have become intermingled with units from the other side…" And we have another multiplayer scenario. Though the fact that this divides things into teams should be a clue that it would work for 2 players as well, even if it loses out on a cool feature. If you want to see a two player version of this the first battle in the Age of Sigmar: Skirmish book is basically an adaptation of this scenario to two players. The basic idea is that players will take turns deploying their armies in one of six territories on the table top, 6 inches away from the models of other players. Here's the twist though: you won't know who is on your team when you deploy. Page 17: "After all players have set up, they must split into two coalitions." You draw coloured dice from a cup until both teams are decided. Any random way of splitting up the players into teams will work. There's a little table of how to split up odd numbers of players. The victory conditions are basically to kill heroes (you get more points if it's a general and even more if it's the warlord for an entire team) and inflict the most wounds in a battle round. You keep track of wounds inflicted and after both teams have had their player turn, the player with the most scores some points for their side. And finally the centre ground is worth victory points if your coalition has the most models within 6" of the centre point of the table. So what about the 2 player version in the Skirmish Book? You take turns deploying units rather than each player deploying their whole army. And units are deployed in table quarters determined randomly. But not close to the centre of the table and not within 9" of an enemy model. Models that can't deploy (all space they would fit in is within 9" of an enemy model) come in later as reserves. My experiences with both the full sized scenario and the skirmish one have been positive. Especially the skirmish one. Deploying unit by unit and closing off certain parts of the table to the opponent is a neat addition to the scenario. Though it does lose out on the surprise of only finding out who the enemy is after all deployment is complete. Maybe a hybrid is worth trying? Unit by unit deployment and then find out who your enemy is in a multiplayer scenario? What do I wish they did differently here? Make both multiplayer and two player versions of each of these multiplayer scenarios right in the book. Multiplayer is fun, but a lot of these scenarios would work great for two players and they could have done a bit more to make that obvious. This is true for pretty much all of the multiplayer scenarios in the Open Play section.
  7. "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown." - H. P. Lovecraft It's basically just the equivalent of an emergency break. In decades of gaming, it's only been used to fix an issue like maybe twice for me. It's been used to extend the fun a few times though. Where my opponent brought out another force and declared that the flanking force has arrived. Doing so basically meant I won the initial scenario and now we're doing a new thing. Stuff like this isn't really a defining characteristic of Open Play but is simply a tool. One that might be used by players who are open. Just a technique I thought I'd share. I know there are loads of people out there who don't get the gaming they want out of the same points pitched battle type games that have come to dominate many local gaming scenes. It's actually sad that those who would enjoy a more open approach to their gaming are afraid to do so because they've been told that the problem play from their least favorite games of matched play is what the open play approach to play produces, when it doesn't. There is no real solution other than to keep talking to people and finding like minded individuals. There really is nothing that can be done about people who literally believe that all their nightmares will come true if they stray out of a rigid approach meant to protect them from other players. As long as they hold that belief they are not very likely to even consider putting models down on the table the second they see or hear a hint of the dreaded "open play" bogeyman. Probably the best approach (and this only works when the game is growing locally) is to play with new players and do what you can to set the tone. It's one of the reasons I'm concentrating so heavily on skirmish in my own gaming. I want a vibrant local community that embraces all manner of play and the way to do that is to have relaxed and open gaming for new people. There will definitely be enough opportunities for matched play in most locales, so those who would enjoy matched play will not be prevented from doing so by having a wider array of initial experiences.
  8. @Trout Obviously I can't talk about how to solve a problem in situ without a situation to use as an example. I know you think you've done something rhetorically clever by pointing out a theoretical example or musing on the shortcomings of points systems in the same post as an appeal to only concentrating on actual problems is some how self defeating, but it really isn't. And the caricature of Open Play is not a theoretical problem. It's a real one. People actually experience massive resistance to even trying Open Play because of the wrong ideas their potential opponents have about it in their minds. And those fears certainly don't need to be reinforced. Furthermore the line by line parsing of my posts and then quoting my own words back to me as some sort of "gotcha" came across very poorly. For the record, I'm not against having the next Open Play section having some sort of "how to use points" section. I don't think they do what other people think they do, but if people want to use them as a tool, then I'm fine with that. I like that Open Play in the new 40k has a simplified "power" system that people can use. While still maintaining the notion that they don't always have to be equal (see the command rerolls in the Only War scenario in the free rules briefing PDF for 40k). This is a Let's Read thread about the Open Play section of the General's Handbook. If you could keep future posts in this thread about Open Play itself rather than advocating for abandoning Open Play for a version of Matched Play with fewer restrictions, that would be awesome.
  9. Support for low model count games. Even before the Skirmish book came out, there were (and still are) loads of people who were taking the base game and having a great time at 500, 750 or 1000 points. With Skirmish and an upcoming book for Path to Glory with rules for all the factions, it should be one of the best times for playing smaller games. I look forward to the idea of starting with a Skirmish Warband, playing through a campaign of that and then transitioning into a Path to Glory campaign.
  10. I look forward to testing them out. Gaming buddies and myself have started using the skirmish booklet with both Age of Sigmar and the new 40k so we've been collecting fan made supplements to try out.
  11. There's enough of a weird fiction vibe coming from some AoS stuff that I decided 40k and AoS would get the same terrain.
  12. My primary goal for skirmish gaming is to enjoy low model count games using fun scenarios that are over in an hour. My secondary goal is to have a growing warband be something that can eventually become a "normal" Age of Sigmar army for anyone who participates. So for my purposes, the Skirmish book is better than Hinterlands/AoS28. It just does something different.
  13. Hey creepy eye! I really like the bow. That turned out great in constrast with the large amount of black on the model.
  14. I'd actually like to see something closer to 40k here. With items being possibilities mentioned right on the warscroll on a unit by unit basis. And no modification of gear for named characters.
  15. Superior at what? Importing the idea of a matched play even points game into another way to play? And why is doing your own evaluation equated to "guessing?" If I play a scenario and my horde of plague bearers are really hard to kill and my opponent has a bunch of stuff that is middling in its damage output (but maybe also resilient or maybe fast whatever) then it doesn't matter what the points are. My plague bearers will be functionally invincible-- never killed off before the game ends, never unseated off an objective. I can make an evaluation that despite being equal points, maybe our game needs me to take less resistant stuff or more hard hitting stuff. For me, "superior" is when something gives a better game experience. Points never, ever take into consideration synergy, the ability of the opponent's models, the battleplans, the terrain, etc.,. They're always in a vacuum based on what the designers think the most likely game situation is and then informed by tournament play which heavily (perhaps entirely) weighted towards the goal of even matches. The first page of Open Play suggests that maybe things don't always have to be like that. An evaluation based on a real game situation and then adjusting (either on the fly in that particular game (yes, you can do that) or for the next one) is always going to be a more concrete intervention to produce better game play. Points are a guideline, but they are also "guessing" a lot of things about the upcoming game when they are set. There's also a very common current in the advocacy of importing matched play ideas into other modes of play. To preemptively solve problems or prevent them from happening. I would put forward an idea: things aren't problems until they actually are and the actual problems are the only thing that needs solving. As well, they can be solved in situ and not with a general system applied to everything. If my plague bearers are sitting on an objective and there is no way my opponent can unseat them and we realize the game was a forgone conclusion before it even began we can have a bunch of Stormcast show up attracted by the daemonic build up. Or change the scenario and move the objective or how it is scored. Or admit that despite using the guidelines of points, things didn't work out and we should call the game and set up a new one. Jamie the Jasper's battleplan names do sort of exist (the last battleplan in the let's read part of this thread for example, is all about being a massively outnumbered doomed defender), but also are an answer to the common fears of imaginary negative play experiences people have when they approach Open Play from the perspective of Matched Play. Open Play would certainly benefit from having more guidelines to help those who think they need to be protected from their fellow gamers get over that fear. If people were to approach Open Play for what it actually is rather than the caricature they have in their minds about it, those battleplans wouldn't immediately seem like such a good idea. My initial instinct was that it would be great if Jamie the Jasper's ideas were a reality (and I too assumed that something like that would be later in the chapter), but now I'm thinking the opposite is true. If you made battleplans that reinforced the caricature of Open Play in people's minds, then you'd make it a reality. People out there actually think Open Play is about whoever buys more models gets to put them on the table and always win because they outspent or outpainted their opponent. It's hard enough to get people to loosen up about their gaming without them thinking that's what Open Play is actually about.